April 20, 2014, 03:38:24 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - KyleSTL

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27
31
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: This momma is looking to buy a camera ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 01:23:51 PM »
Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.
The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'?  While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II

Yes, you are right. "Remotely comparable". However, I'd take an RX100II any time over a G1X. Not only because of the smaller size, but also because I believe [not checked] that RX-100 II beats the G1X in image quality - despite the sensor size difference. At least at the most frequently used lower ISO settings.

As far as the S-120 or G16 are concerned: they are not even remotely comparable to the RX100-II.  :-)
Granted, the RX100 II has 20 MP (vs. 14MP for G1X and 12MP for S120/G16) so it will have better resolution at base ISO (~20% higher linear resolution all things being equal), but will that make much or any difference at higher ISOs, or printed < 30x40, or shared online?  Although, now that I'm thinking of it, the RX100 II will have a FL advantage over the G1X when cropped to 12MP (120mm vs. 112mm).

I agree that RX100 II is a significantly better camera than S120 or G16, but there are a few attributes that favor the latter that are worth consideration (priority will obviously be determined by the buyer/user).  The FL advantage disappears for the S120 when the Sony is cropped to 12MP (129mm), but the G16 still has a very slight advantage (140mm).

Overall, the RX100 II is a superior camera to the other three I've listed, but does not have an advantage in all specifications, so I made comparison to outline the Canon options that are available.

To the OP, it would be a shame for you to spend a lot of money on a camera (with instantaneous depreciation) and not be happy with the results (especially in regards to video AF performance).  I would suggest looking up reviews and/or demonstrations that highlight AF performance in video (DP Review, The Camera Store, etc) for the various cameras you are considering (ideally all using the same lens).  If you go the DSLR route I think all of us can agree that STM lenses are a must (since you're planning on using the video function), with the 70D being ideal, followed by the 100D (SL1), then the 650D (T4i) and 700D (T5i).  And remember, no camera you're thinking about is as expensive as buying two if you're unhappy with the results produced by the first purchase.  I'm not trying to up-sell you or anything, I just want to give you all the information I have so you end up with a camera that you're happy with.

32
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: This momma is looking to buy a camera ?
« on: October 29, 2013, 11:25:16 AM »
Unfortunately Canon has nothing even remotely comparable to the Sony RX100 II at the moment.

The G1X is not 'remotely comparable'?  While it is not in the same size/form factor it has several advantages over the RX100 II (which is an outstanding camera in its segment):

- Larger sensor (almost APS-C size)
- Slightly longer zoom (112mm vs. 100mm)
- Fully articulated screen
- Slower lens, but equivalent DOF control compared to RX100 II (slightly worse on wide end, and better on long end) because of larger sensor - see below





Heck even the G16 or S120 could be thrown into the mix with a couple of advantages over the RX100 II (at the compromise of a much smaller sensor):
- S120 gains 24mm wide end and goes longer to 120mm (although slower lens at the long end by ~1/3 stop)
- G16 has very fast lens (f/1.8-2.8) and goes to 140mm on the long end (and has very comparable DOF control - see charts above)
- G16 can do 12.2 fps for 6 shots and 9.3 fps for 522 shots and S120 can do 12.1 fps for 6 shots and 9.4 fps for 635 shots (RX100 II does 10 fps for 14 shots then slows to 2 fps)
- Better video compression with Digic 6 processor and more frame rate options (1080p60, 1080p30, 720p30, 480p30), whereas the Sony only does 1080p60 and 480p30

Obvious disadvantages for S120 and G16 are bad high ISO performance, lack of tilting screen, and S120 has significant disadvantage in DOF control compared to RX100 II.

33
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: This momma is looking to buy a camera ?
« on: October 28, 2013, 03:27:28 PM »
I would say the 70D would be a good fit if you are going to be doing a lot of videos.  The highly advanced dual-pixel AF allows the user to focus on composition and movement more than pulling focus.  Get STM lenses (18-55 STM, 40 STM, 18-135 STM, 55-250 STM) and you basically have the most advanced camcorder on the market.  You might be happy with the other AF-C capable cameras in movie mode, but you can't do better than the 70D in the Canon lineup (or arguably in anyone's lineup).  As long as it isn't breaking the bank, 70D is the way to go in my opinion.

34
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 25, 2013, 11:25:23 AM »
It's an adapted Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 as seen here: http://kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/80-200mm-f28.htm

The flange distance for Konica-Minolta is only 0.5mm longer than EF.  No chance of mount adapter for that without losing infinity focus.  You could change out the mount itself to EF, but it would still be a manual focus lens with no aperture control (wide-open only).  I can't see anyone with a press pass to photograph the World Series doing that.

*UPDATE 2*

Another suggestion from a man who knows everything about lenses.  He thinks it’s a “28-300 with filter barrel removed”.

So Roger think it's a modified 28-300mm.  Any pictures online of such a beast?  Any reason given for why one would modify it as such?

Game 2 picture from the gigapan - same guy (hard to tell since his face is obscured, but he's in the same area as Game 1)?  If so, he's a Canon shooter, as that is the 200-400mm f/4L.

35
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 24, 2013, 11:13:08 AM »
No red ring....this is nothing.....

Plus...seems too small for the 100-400L....

+1

a99 + 70-200mm seems almost definitely the combo (although a3000 or a58 could be possibilities since they are the only other two Sony cameras with white 'a' logos on the front - although that's probably unlikely):



Especially considering the small orange-red glow to the right of the lens mount in the OP (either the alignment dot or the orange lens mount in the case of the a99).


36
Lenses / Re: Image of the New 100-400?
« on: October 24, 2013, 08:51:20 AM »
This may help:

http://www.mlb.com/photos/gigapan/?gpId=6db032d85980b65987c98e4820c12e1c&c_id=bos&year=2013&year=2013

On the first base line, just above the middle sign that says "WelcomeBackVeterns.org" in a red jacket.

37
At $250 you're crazy for passing it up.  They typically go for $500-700 nowadays.  At the least you could make some money in a flip if it is still in good, working condition.

38
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Removal of IR Highpass filter
« on: October 16, 2013, 01:21:55 PM »
Really good DIY step-by-step (with excellent pictures):

http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials
http://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/canon-drebel-xti

I have removed the IR filter from an XSi that was damaged beyond repair (the sensor was still in good shape).  The removal was not as easy as most tutorials indicate (the glass cracked multiple times as I was prying it out of the dust removal frame).  Have not put it into an operable camera yet to see what the results look like, yet.  I should be done fixing another XSi in the next couple of weeks and I'd like to throw it in there to see what results I get.

39
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 08, 2013, 01:27:46 PM »
You sink 2000$ in a small odd shaped lens and all the picture it takes comes blurry  - My wife 

 tilt shift?  I still don't understand tilt shifts,  but maybe I'll borrow one one day and figure out the draw.
I think he's talking about the 85L (narrow depth of field with very blurred background).  But I do take issue with calling it odd-shaped (the 17mm TS-E and 8-15mm take that crown), even if it is a chunky little monster.

40
Canon General / Re: Irritating photography advice
« on: October 07, 2013, 02:02:20 PM »
Or the other extreme, you NEED 2.8 lenses or faster to be taken seriously... or even better yet, you need all prime lenses.
That sounds a lot like Jared Polin.  Also, from the same guy:
  • Never crop

41
EOS Bodies / Re: Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 04, 2013, 12:07:35 PM »
Higher resolution LCD screens

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4-5S and the 3:2 aspect ratio it would have a resolution of -
3.0":  814 x 542 (1.32 million dot)
3.2":  868 x 579 (1.51 million dot)
3.5":  960 x 640 (1.84 million dot) - same size as iPhone 4/4S

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (441 ppi) as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and 3:2 AR it would be -
3.0":  1100 x 733 (2.42 million dot)
3.2":  1174 x 783 (2.76 million dot)
3.5":  1284 x 856 (3.30 million dot)

Better than the current 720 x 480 (1.04 million dot) displays (288 ppi @ 3", 270 ppi @ 3.2"), and could allow Canon to tout the highest resolution LCD on any DSLR (Samsung would still have the biggest, though, with the almost-unusably-large Galaxy series at 4.8").  Does anyone know what type of panel technology is used in current DSLR LCDs (TN, MVA, PVA, IPS, eIPS, etc)?

What are your thoughts?

Canon does not produce LCD's, they buy them from Sony. 
 
I'd like them to use a OLED display so it is bright enough to use outdoors.
Yes, the same Sony that makes the Xperia Z (5.0" LCD at 1080p - 443ppi). 

OLED would be a good option.  My dream is for someone to come up with a full color screen that is as easy to read in full sunlight as e-Ink but also has backlight for darker conditions.  Also, S-IPS color accuracy (100%+ sRGB spectrum), RGB LED backlight and 1000:1 contrast ratio.  I'm not asking for too much, am I?

42
Lenses / Re: Lens reversal macro on canon 17-40mm
« on: October 04, 2013, 11:39:07 AM »
77mm reverse macro adapter is liable to not fit very well on your camera body. I tried one out of curiosity, but there isn't enough clearance from the flash/hotshoe protrusion to really work.

+1 for nifty fifty with 52mm reverse adapter. Or if you're thinking of doing a lot of reverse macro, find a lens that lets you set the aperture manually on the barrel (Nikon's nifty fifty on a Canon body, for example, is even better than Canon's).
I was thinking the same thing, but you could always do something like a EF to 58mm thread and add a step-down ring for 77 to 58 or something like that to give you a bit more clearance, but that would also affect your macro maginfication by moving the lens further out.

43
EOS Bodies / Prediction for next round of DSLR cameras
« on: October 01, 2013, 03:57:36 PM »
Higher resolution LCD screens

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (326 ppi) as the iPhone 4-5S and the 3:2 aspect ratio it would have a resolution of -
3.0":  814 x 542 (1.32 million dot)
3.2":  868 x 579 (1.51 million dot)
3.5":  960 x 640 (1.84 million dot) - same size as iPhone 4/4S

If Canon were to produce an LCD with the same pixel pitch (441 ppi) as the Samsung Galaxy S4 and 3:2 AR it would be -
3.0":  1100 x 733 (2.42 million dot)
3.2":  1174 x 783 (2.76 million dot)
3.5":  1284 x 856 (3.30 million dot)

Better than the current 720 x 480 (1.04 million dot) displays (288 ppi @ 3", 270 ppi @ 3.2"), and could allow Canon to tout the highest resolution LCD on any DSLR (Samsung would still have the biggest, though, with the almost-unusably-large Galaxy series at 4.8").  Does anyone know what type of panel technology is used in current DSLR LCDs (TN, MVA, PVA, IPS, eIPS, etc)?

What are your thoughts?

44
Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 27, 2013, 08:37:46 AM »
OK, now it's starting to make sense.  Thanks for sharing the link, Pi.  This does seem like an interesting technology.  I just wonder what that section of the image would look like if you put a Pentax Q + shift adapter (for the higher pixel density ~ 250MP FF equivalent) on the Canon 8-15mm.

Also, here's a presentation:
http://psilab.ucsd.edu/publications/(presentation_2013)_stamenov_(OSA_IS).pdf

45
Lenses / Re: UCSD Science FAIL
« on: September 26, 2013, 07:04:24 PM »
OK, maybe the science isn't quite as horrible as Tom's lead me to believe.  I read through the link posted by Drizzt321 and still think the images provided have a very skewed control.  We could rename the paper:

"UCSD Discovers Using Higher Pixel Density Results in Pictures with Greater Detail"

Read through it, what I took away from it is that they created a 12mm lens (what is the effective image circle?) much smaller than the Canon 8-15mm Fisheye - definitely an impressive feat.  However the article talks about 5MP sensors (what size are said sensors?) with an unknown pixel pitch being used with this lens.  The graphic and caption read:



Quote
Advantages of a monocentric lens. Top: This image was captured with a conventional wide-angle lens, a Canon EOS 5D Mark III DSLR with a 12mm focal length. Middle: An inset of the image above. A close-up (right) of the man holding the board shows that this picture, taken with a conventional wide-angle camera with 12mm focal length, does not have very high resolution. Bottom: An image taken with a monocentric lens relayed onto a high-magnification digital microscope. This system did not include the fiber coupling developed by the researchers for their prototype camera, but the clarity of the detail shows the potential of using monocentric lenses to take images with both high resolution and a wide field of view.


So why is there no level playing field, say, each lens tested with the same sensor (or at least of the same pixel pitch), like shown in the test bench?:



I'm not knocking the fact that they have created a pretty impressive lens, especially considering its size (and also the apparent lack of chromatic aberation), but the picture shown, I feel, is extremely misleading and implies that the absolute most the 8-15mm can resolve is 22 MP (which I don't believe for a second).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27